greta: we are closing down shop. watch. here's glenn. [captioning made possible by fox news channel] captioned by the national captioning institute ---www.ncicap.org---^ >> three, two, one, beck! andrew: welcome to the glenn beck program. glenn is off tonight. i'm judge andrew napolitano. tonight we focus on women's issues and the healthcare bill, and we will get an up close and personal look at one brand of government-run healthcare, and where does congress get the power to do universal healthcare and cap and trade from? the constitution explained, if you believe this country is great but the government is destroying it, stand up. no sneakers, no m&ms, but plenty of facts. follow me.

healthcare reform is sparking contentious debate around the country. at the white house, robert gibbs explaining today that president obama is not backing off the public option. he clarified the president's position. take a listen. >> the president's position and the administration's position is unchanged, that we have a goal of fostering choice and competition in a private health insurance market. the president prefers the public option as a way of doing that. if others have ideas, we're open to those ideas and we will listen to those details. andrew: a lot of emotional debate over healthcare, but what about women's healthcare issues, the independent women's forum just launched a new ad campaign. take a look. >> two and a half million american women and me have survived breast cancer. today i'm a survivor. i wonder what washington might do now. most everyone agrees we should

reform healthcare, but many want to create a government-run health insurance plan, paid for by taxpayers at a huge cost. independent experts say tens of millions of americans will wind up on this public plan. england already has government-run healthcare, and their breast cancer survival rate is much lower. if you find a lump, you can wait months for treatment and potentially lifesaving drugs could be restricted. government control of healthcare here could mean that 300,000 women with breast cancer might have died. my odds of surviving were high because my care was the best. what are your odds if the government takes over your healthcare? andrew: wow. joining me now, heather higgins, chair for the independent women's forum, and tracy walsh, a 44-year-old breast cancer survivor featured in the new ad campaign by the women's independence forum that we just saw.

heather, what are wij mainly concerned about in the president's proposal? >> women are lugely concerned. i think all citizens are concerned but we particularly hear from women, although we jokingly refer to ourselves as the women's group where we like men so we have naturally men who are men who are plemers about and we could have said this also about prostate cancer where the differential survival rates are even more dramatic between them and the united states. we lost our founder to this. we lost one of our young colleagues who had a 3-year-old and a new baby to breast cancer. there are several members of the staff who have been touched by this either themselves or their families, so we're very concerned, as are a number of women. we find liberals, conservatives, independents, people look at the experiences with the actual outcomes of these systems where the government provides the care, where the government becomes the arbiter and it is no longer your body, your choice.

it is no longer your decision with your doctor, but there's some bureaucrat somewhere who is deciding the quality of your life here and weather this treatment is good for you, who recompenses doctors on whether treatment they provide is standard issue efficient, according to their definition, not what is really right for you, because we know that medicine is really an art, and so for a host of reasons, we felt that the public needed to be educated about this. andrew: tracy, do you think you would have gotten the care that you got in the manner that you received it at the time that you did in order to save your life if you had been in canada or in england, or if we had the brittish or canadian system here? >> no. i think my choices of treatment would have been greatly limited if care was delayed. my cancer was caught very early. i had choices in my treatment, and i chose an option that would give me a cure, pretty

much, but if it were delayed by months, the cancer could have advanced and i may not have had as many choices in my treatment and i would have been fighting for my life. andrew: did the government, heather, even take into account the interference with the intimacy of the communication between a woman and her physician, the interference by a government bureaucrat, or a set of government protocols, something that is totally alien to the american interests of medicine and alien to the relationship of a woman to her physician? >> well, one of the things that was of concern after it passed in the stimulus bill, provisions that talked about the consulting power that the government would have regarding a consultation with the doctor about what treatment means to take. that sounded a little bit

orwellian to us. if you know something about medicine, especially talking to doctors, where they have been trying for years to determine what is the most effective way and they can't quantify it, so the idea that some bureaucrat who, is no longer the government acting as a referee of what insurance companies are doing but is now the deciding arm against which you have no claim, that is really, really scary to a lot of people. andrew: tracy, what was the treatment that you actually received which you might have had to have waited six, seven, eight, ten months in great britain or canada? >> i went in for a routine mammogram friday afternoon. on tuesday afternoon i was in the surgical center having a needle biopsy. that wednesday night, i talked to the surgeon, the doctor, who was also a friend of mine that i knew socially, so that was very comforting that i could choose my doctor, when

he gave me the diagnosis, he gave me the choices of my treatment because my cancer was caught so early, and my fear is with this plan that was written up in the stimulus bill, as heather mentioned, is the government would set a protocol for my diagnosis and tells me what i would have to do and only what they would pay for and i would not have had a choice in my treatment. i chose a very radical treatment in choosing to have double mastectomies with my cancer, because i wanted to get rid of it and not be afraid of it returning. there were other choices that i could have taken where i would leave my chances open for the cancer recurring, and i would be afraid if the government sets a protocol for my diagnosis, i wouldn't have that choice, and my hope would be taken away. my peace of mind would be taken away and control over my own body would be taken away, and that's my biggest worry. andrew: heather, do you think

the american public has come to understand the dangers and the pitfalls of shifting decision making from patient/physician to government protocol? >> they certainly seem to, and one of the things that is really fascinate something despite the constant demonizing by the leadership on the left and various talking heads, you find that the average citizen is actually downloading what's been written, what's been said, what the different proponents of this have been actually articulated over and over, whether it is ezekiel emanuel or others, and they are really concerned. they understand what this moves towards. i think they're starting to understand that it is not just the public option that gets you there, but they have heard reid and pelosi and others comment that even things like the co-op plan and mandates, which sound kind of benign on their surface, are all different means to getting to this shift from individuals making their decisions to government making decisions for you. andrew: it is still the

government. heather and tracy, thanks very much for joining us. >> you're welcome. andrew: things heated up at a town hall meeting at a senior center in dartmouth, massachusetts. wait until you see this. take a look at congressman barney frank, barney frank attacking the same people he is supposed to represent. >> >> trying to have a conner conversation with you is like arguing with a dining room table! i have no interest in doing it! andrew: joining us with dr. keith ablow, a psychiatrist and fox news participator. some of the things were wild and some of them uninformed and some of them intended to antagonize him regarding the questions but referring to his or comparing his constituent to a dining room table. what does that tell you? >> it is very unfortunate, obviously. i can't imagine what you

achieve by doing that. i don't think you send out a signal, even to the faithful followers that you're someone to follow. in other words, it is the end of a discussion. it sounds like a schoolyard bully at that point, not somebody worthy of leading. i'm sure he regrets it, i would hope, the day after. andrew: should he be cool, calm and collected, it's all right, they trust my judgment, it won't rattle me, or should he take into account the various complaints of these people who have given up their time, griff driven many miles an came to share their views? >> i'll share what therapists learn. as a psychiatrist, you never go off on your own tangent. just asserting that something is true for an individual or a group of people. you always want to be sampling. have i calculated right or wrong?

there is so much feedback coming back, so much volume, that you would hope the leadership would act in a therapeutic way and say wait a second. what is wrong? we elect add man who is supposed to be a great listener, as are our chief executives. andrew: if a member of congress really gets beaten up like one of arlen specter's constituents said to him, when you stand before god and you try to justify your destruction of the constitution, you're going to get your just desserts, or this woman, who apparently really got to barney frank, do you think that it doesn't bother them because they're so above it all, or do you think they toss and turn at night, like i would? >> i think they can be very insulated. you can tell yourself a story of being of superior knowledge, and instead of a representative, you are the high priest of government, and that the people less informed

and need to be lead rather minely. there is a story that elected officials tell themselves about being the man or woman in the arena. if i get beat up, it's because i'm a public servant. i know the right thing and these people who are ill informed, of course, like schoolchildren, they're going to have some feedback. andrew: you're a psychiatrist. you know the workings of the human mind. public opinion has shift add little bit, i think, during this month of august, and i think the president knows that and the guts of what he wants, medicare for people under 65, may be off the table. in some last-ditch effort to salvage the core of what he wants, he's going to speak to believous leaders. good move? bad move? desperation? what do you think, dr. keith ablow? >> i think it's an interesting move.

i can understand that as a politician you want to take along all the faithful from wherever they come. however, the appeal to religious leaders as though somehow the doling out of healthcare by the government is like alms to the poor is not quite on, because the bottom line is that this is a whole sea change in a system. this is about what all of us get, the quality that all of us will enjoy. it isn't just about charity. if it were just about that, we have lots of telethons to raise money to ensure the poor. that's where you go to churches an temples and mosques and say lets get the money in to assure these people are insured. andrew: thank you, dr. keith be a hoe. >> thank you. andrew: if you want to see government-run healthcare looks like, go to an indian res reservation. there is a saying there, "don't get sick after june." we went to the rosebud resser

ation in south dakota to find out why. >> an incident happened at rosebud reservation. when my son was 16, a bull kicked him in the jaw and dr. dillard ordered intubation on him. they didn't put him out. he was still awake. i got some reports, handwritten from nurses, and what they said about my son laying on the floor in the puddle of blood, crawling around on the emergency floor, while they were standing there fighting, and they couldn't find the right tools, so they p picked it up off the floor and put it down his throat. >> it is like saying jumbo shrimp because the service is

not there. >> nobody should have to go there. the health system is broke here. it's broke. >> you talk to the native american population and they will tell you that by treaty they are wren titled to healthcare provided by the federal government. congress simply has chosen not to allocate the funds. welcome to the federal government. >> you get a budget that is only 40% of your needs, you will have rationing of healthcare, and that's what is happening to us right now. >> they say this is no money left to provide services. it is pretty much all that way all the time. >> they use the phrase "life or limbs," if you're going to lose an arm or lose your life, those are priet or ti ones. old athletes that have maybe knee issues that it is not going to cost you a life or your limb, they are a priority, two, so a priority

one, based on budgets is what is looked after. >> our people deserve quality in caish. that's' what our fight is about. we're trying to get everybody taken care of. cheer clear >> hopelessness. a lot of indians kill themselves because of a sense of hopelessness, no jobs, nowhere to turn to. >> i did good in school and was an honor student and just got drunk. one week later, he killed himself. it just blows your mind. i think the main bottom line is the number of people who

don't care. just because we're native americans doesn't mean we're lower class citizens. >> congress is not the entity that you would entrust with your individual healthcare. we do not wish indian health service on anybody. if congress can't fix indian health service, how in the world are they ever going to take care of the rest of the american population? >> he is still dealing with a lot of it. he has never talked about it. he has flashbacks about it. he has to watch what he does because anything going through his throat could kill him. >> i was thinking about obama's healthcare reform. if they can't take care of us here on the rosebud, how can they take care of the people across this country? it's going to get worse. i can safely say that. andrew: something to think about. glenn learns all about what

socialized medicine is next if a

hoveround power chair? the statue of liberty? the grand canyon? it's all possible with a hoveround. tom: hi i'm tom kruse, inventor and founder of hoveround. when we say you're free to see the world, we mean it. call today and get a free hoveround information kit that includes a video and full color brochure. dennis celorie: "it's by far the best chair i've ever owned." and if you qualify get it for little or no money. jim plunkitt: "no cost. absolutely no cost to me." breaking news...when you call today, we'll include a free hoveround collapsible grabber with the purchase of your power chair. it reaches, it grabs, it's collapsible and it's portable. it goes wherever you go. get it free while supplies last. declare your independence call now, you'll be glad you did. call the number on your screen.

glenn: that made it look spooky. european socialized healthcare is not spooky. no, it's not, and you're not going to be anything but sunshine an lollipops. some had will say, no, glenn, i think it stinks on ice. to figure that out you have to talk to someone who knows the systel firsthand. daniel hannon is a member of the european parliament from southeast england. big fan, sir. welcome. >> a pleasure is mine. glenn: now, you can't run for president, but you can just run for congress. you have a lot of fans here in

america. >> i'm a big fan of your constitution and a strict interpretationist about it. glenn: you are one of the only politicians in a long time that we have heard say that you are a fan of constitution. it is not popular here in america. >> i'm not popular among all the politicians but it made you rich, free and independent, and it has driven those values to every other continent in the world so the world owes you something. glenn: here we have a congress and a president that are not listening to the american people, and they're not listening or reading the constitution and about to deliver us the universal right to medicine that is just fantastic in your country. tell me about how great universal healthcare is. >> well, the most striking thing about it is that you are very often just sent to the back of the queue. you turn up with a complaint, with an ailment, and you're told, ok, how about october of next year, or whatever it is, and you're then not able to

supplement your treatment, your healthcare treatment with any private money of your own. people who had conditions which they had tried to buy drugs for independently, they were told that their whole treatment would be stopped. i had a friend of mine, and this is an amazing story. a friend of mine broke his ankle and he went into the emergency. it was friday night. now, one of our national traditions is that on friday night we all get drunk and have fights with one another. there was a long queue of people to get n he said, look, i'm in real pain. he said can i have pain killers while i'm waiting. they said no, get to the back of the line. he said i'll buy them. they said no, we don't have any provisions for independent purchase of medicine that. is the mentality. glenn: i can't imagine what americans will do when they have to -- we just put this up on the screen. cataract surgery, eight months you have to wait. hip replacement, 11 months.

you may be free, but what is your quality of life? you have to wait 11 months. knee replacement, wait for 12 months. herniated disk, five months. >> and if you can't work during that period, you're losing income, so it's hardly free, and in any case, you're paying for it through your taxes. glenn: we just found out from -- and he is a guy i disagree with on almost everything, and he is my senator and i don't wish him ill, but we just found out that senator chris dodd has prostate cancerment i would like to make a challenge to senator chris dodd to go to your country and be treated with prostrate cancer. here in the u.s. survival rate is 100%, but in 95% in canada, and 70% in the u.k.

>> we invented this healthcare at a peck cule quar time, 1944^ , when we had food rationing and everything was rationalized and we had unusually high taxes, because everything had been proscripted into the war. that was the thinking that he led to the state healthcare system. i find it incredible that a free people, living in a country dedicated and founded in the course of independence and freedom can seriously be thinking about such a system in peacetime and massively expanding the role of the state when they don't need to. >> they say it will save us money. >> it is the single biggest item of our government budget. glenn: of course it is. >> the state doesn't do things as efficiently as the market does. if you know you're getting the same treatment without paying for it, you have no incentive to keep costs down. glenn: do you follow here in america at all what's

happening on the gowns with our politicians, because they're currently getting hammered by the people as they're coming home. these congressmen are coming home, and i hope to god, congress, you learn from this, because it's only going to get much, much worse for you. what could they possibly be thinking? >> i mean, i don't know, but i just say as an elected representative myself, no politician can disregard his constituents' opinion, and there is no dishonor in an elected representative listening to what his constituency wants. that is how democracy is supposed to work. i hope the people watching this program, whichever side they're on, will make their views felt and i hope their representatives will listen to them over the summer vacation. quite apart from everything else, i wonder at a time like this how the u.s. can afford something of this scale. glenn: they're telling us that we can't afford not to do it. they're telling us this lie

that somehow or another if we do this, this is going to solve all of our problems with our debt and deficit. somehow or another, we're going to save so much in healthcare. >> i can't imagine how. glenn: you deny people certain procedures at a certain age, do you not? >> the worst thing to be is elderly under a system like ours. we have horror stories about elderly people left starving in wards, and the amazing thing is why do we put up with it? the reason we put up with it for so long is because it has become such a huge system. it has such an enormous bureaucracy. we have 1.4 million people employed by the national health service. it is the third biggest employer in the world after the red army in china and india national railways, but these are all administrators. the managers outnumber the doctors and nurses and that

makes it almost eu78 impossible to get rid of. if you do this thing, don't imagine that you can come back an change your minds a couple of years from now. glenn: that's why i say, america, you cannot let this pass. don't let any of this structure in, because do you think, the third largest employer in the world, do you think -- now you understand why they want it so badly. that's why. this is going to change the face of america, and it will do it forever. daniel, thank you very much. daniel, thank you very much. >> thanknknknknknknknk bull market or bear, traders are always hungry for ideas. trading's all about strategy. and strategy's... all about information. heat mapping shows me where the money's moving. twenty-five hundred stocks... one quick glance. that's where the action is. look at this, pattern matcher. pattern matcher spots technical patterns automatically. it's like pattern radar. td ameritrade. built by traders, for traders. this is what i need. announcer: trade commission free for 30 days, plus get 100 dollars cash, when you open an account. house, faster and easier

than ever before? well now you can, introducing the new... powerful... lightweight... oreck xl platinum vacuum. you don't vacuum open floors, you vacuum rooms filled with furniture. and the xl platinum makes cleaning under, around, and behind them, fast and easy! so take advantage of this limited time no-payments-no-interest-for-one- full-year offer and order your new oreck xl platinum today! call now and for cleaning stairs or up high we'll also send you the powerful oreck handheld vacuum-- a $250 value-absolutely free. hi, i'm david oreck, and this is my new platinum upright vacuum. it's the best upright we have ever built. i want you to try it risk free for 30 days. you'll also receive a year's supply of filter bags free, plus this incredible steam iron, a $130 value, yours free just for trying the xl platinum upright. what's the secret to being both powerful and lightweight? unlike big, heavy vacuums, the xl platinum gives you

the 102-miles-per-hour cleaning power of direct suction at the floor where you need it the most, in an upright that weighs about nine-pounds. an upright that cleans in virtually one pass, drawing it right into a bag that traps 99.9% of all dirt and allergens down to point three microns. the xl platinum is agile enough to get where the dirt is, versatile enough to go from carpet right to tile or wood without any height adjustments. and it's backed by a 10-year warranty. your credit's good with oreck. call now for no payments and no interest for 1 full year. if you like it, keep it, if you don't i'll pay return shipping. "oreck definitely exceeded my expectations level." "i look forward to cleaning now." call now and get the free oreck hand-held, free filter bags, and free steam iron. it's yours to keep even if you return the oreck power team! no payments, no interest for one full year and free shipping, too! the new powerful, lightweight oreck power team... clean made easy!

join me in 27 minutes on "special report" and now back to the judge in for glenn. andrew: you've heard glenn talk about goldman sachs' strong ties to the obama administration. tonight, another bank, scwvment p morgan chase with strong ties to the obama administration and has received a government bailout, and who that bank is giving its money to. according to our research, jpmorgan chase, ready for this, has given more than $5 million to acorn of a fill quat acorn housing since 2001. a jpmorgan spokesman tells us "our dealings with acorn" have been entirely appropriate." ok, we're not saying it is entirely inappropriate. other banks give money continuously to the group blamed for the mortgage meltdown? why? acorn is accused of operate what this show has called a shell game and some members of

congress have called it, quote, a criminal enterprise that funnels money, government money between its 361 different entities. the obama administration may be distancing itself from the community organization, but not from the funders who are backing it. jpmorgan's c.e.o. jamie diamond has been called, quote "president obama's favorite banker" by "the new york times." diamond reportedly has a phone hotline to his old pals, chief of staff rahm emanuel and treasury secretary tim geithner. here to explore the ties that bind is peter necessary ti, president of the -- peter flaherty. why would jpmorgan chase be interested are in giving $5 million in cash to an organization like acorn? >> by the way, judge, i believe that figure is low. if you go back over the years, i think the figure is much higher, but this thing

really started during the '70's when acorn gut rolling, they targeted the banks, because as jesse jackson pointed out at an acorn conference, quoting jesse james, "that's where the money is," and they figured out if you could picket a bank director's home in a leafy sub burr to say who are these people, get them off my back! like jpmorgan, bank of america, citigroup, started paying tribute to acorn t included direct cash donations. it included investments in acorn housing, inc., and of most consequence, it included backing off opposition to something called the community reinvestment act of 1977, which led to a severe loosening of lending standards, which led to the subprime meltdown and a more general mortgage crisis. andrew: are you telling us, peter, that jpmorgan chase was the victim of a shakedown, and the response to that shakedown to keep these people away from

jamie dimon's house and other executives' homes they coughed up more than $5 million to these characters? >> well, yes. it has been a long-standing process going back to the '70's but that's the mentality. jpmorgan chase got $25 billion in taxpayer tarp money. andrew: right. >> at the same time last year, over 1,000 employees of the company got bonuses of $1 million or more. when you're that affluent, you really don't -- you're not very ideological. you just want to get these people off your back. in continuing the support for acorn, it keeps them at bay, but it's time for shareholders, for customers, and now taxpayers, who have a significant stake in banks like city group, to say enough is enough. where is the accountability? banks are supposed to operate differently now. why are they still supporting acorn? has their relationship with acorn changed at all?

are they demanding more information in light of the allegations of voter registration fraud, and the embezzlement scandal within acorn. andrew: so acorn's banker is not only rich, he's also powerful. the president of the united states -- we have a full screen on this -- has referred to jamie dimon by saying the following "there are a lot of banks that are actually pretty -- there are a lot of banks that are actually pretty well managed. jpmorgan is a good example. jamie dimon, the c.e.o. there, i don't think he should be punished for doing a pretty good job managing an enormous portfolio." let's see. do i have this right? not only does the president know him and like him, the mayor of chicago, where this crowd comes from, his brother, is vice chair of the bank, all of this true? >> well, it is true, but i don't think just because jpmorgan chase has a solid balance sheet that it's excull p tore i when it comes to the

mortgage crisis. they helped p bring on this whole mortgage thing. this bank is very political. obama says dimon is his favorite banker and at least "the new york times" characterized it, and william daley, brother of richard daley, has the title of midwest director. now, how many fortune 500 companies have a midwest directors, not another one, it is political protection, pure an simple. andrew: got it. peter flaherty, thanks so much for joining us. >> thanks, judge. andrew: i get a lot of e-mails about the constitution, with people wondering where congress gets the power to do x or q or z. i will tell you where e e e e e

andrew: welcome back to the program. i'm constantly getting questions of how is this legal? how could the government be allowed to take over healthcare? there are limited delegated and discreet powers of congress in the constitution.

stay with me and take a quick look at them. this is directly from the constitution itself. the congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, to pay debts, to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the united states of america as a country, to borrow money, to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the indian tribes, to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, to coin money and regulate its value, to provide for the punishment of counterfeitting money and securities, to establish post offices, to promote the progress of science and useful arts, to constitute courts inferior to the supreme court, to define and punish piracies on the high seas, to declare war, to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, to make rules for the government and the regulation of the army and the navy, to provide for the calling forth of a militia, to provide for organizing arl my and

disciplining the militia, to exercise exclusively the authority over the district of columbia and to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers. that is it. these are the limited, delegated, discreet powers that the constitution gives to the congress, so how can the government take over healthcare and still comply with the constitution? joining me now in washington are tim lynch, director of the project on criminal justice at the cato institute, and in virginia beach, jay seculo, chief counsel for the american center for law and justice. chief, first to you. if we asked somebody from congress that actually read the constitution, they would say their authority to regulate healthcare comes from the interstate commerce clause, the power of congress

to regulate interstate commerce, but when the founders wrote that word "regulate," didn't they really mean to keep regular, to make sure there is commerce between the states? what do you say? >> you're absolutely right, and judge, i had a feeling you were going to ask me that, and as a good hawr that litigates before courts all over the country, i was going to let you know that if they read their own legislation, you know what is missing? the word commerce clause. it is not even in the various bills being proposed. they don't even pretend to rely on the constitution. rather, what they're doing is a policy of social engineering under the guys of legislation, and they'll come up with theories about constitutional analysis, but at the end of the day, you're absolutely right. to say that the healthcare industry can be taken over by the united states government under the commerce clause or any other provision of the 17 e enumerated powers you just mentioned, it is incorrect as a matter of law, and unconstitutional, in our view,

as a matter of strict constitutional law. andrew: i suppose that if i went from one part of hat manhattan hat to another to visit my doctor without crossing interstate lines, i might argue that there is no interstate commerce solved, but the congress and the lawyers that the congress would hire and maybe even some judges would say, well, let's see. the doctor that you went to went to medical school outside of new york, and the medicine that he gave you was actually made in new jersey, and so because he once left new york and the medicine came from new jersey, there is interstate commerce involved. now, as ridiculous as this sounds, is it not the case that these are the types of arguments that the government has made and that the courts have accepted when trying to justify abuse of the constitution where congress wants to regulate anything that moves? >> yes, it's true, judge.

attorneys go into court to make those kinds of arguments, but let's be clear about this. the constitution does not authorize the federal government to establish a public healthcare system like the one that they have in england or like the one that they have in canada. there would have been no reason to lay out those specific gantts of power that you rattled off if the constitution awghtizes authorized congress to establish any programs and policies that would be in the best interests of the country. there is no reason they would have laid that out. they laid out those specific powers because they wanted the federal government's powers to be limited and the policy makers' to focus on those limited tasks, but the key point for your viewers is that the constitution is incapable of enforcing itself. if members of congress choose to ignore the constitution, then it falls upon the people to exert pressure on congress. somebody once said congress only -- it's only when congress feels the heat that they see the light, so if people want to make their voices heard, they need to exert that pressure on congress, but if the people

become apathetic about the constitution and their freedoms, then the rule of law and their liberties will erode. there has already been too much of that already. andrew: jay, you know the constitution as well as any lawyer i know. not only there those 17 powers that i enumerated but there are some backstops in there, the ninth amendment saying that just the fact we gave these powers to congress doesn't mean we have taken anything from the people. anything we did not give away, we retained for the states. nobody talks about those anymore. >> no, you're right. i had a case that involved the commerce clause provision. the lawyers on the other side of this case were arguing that transportation from a public sidewalk to the door of a business constituted interstate commerce for the purpose of regulatory and federal legislation. the court disagreed with that, but tim said something that follows up with what you said. i'm glad that you are doing this and glenn is continuing to do this. the american people have to continue to speak out on this. the tenth amendment to the

united states constitution, as well as the ninth, said we're not giving everything to the federal government. the states have authority here. heres is the problem. at the end of the day, congress is not thinking about where are they getting the authority to do this? this is a social engineering

back again are our guests, an first to you, tim. so to reg hate interstate commerce means to keep it regular, to make sure it knows easily, that new jersey can't impose a tariff on something coming in from new york or pennsylvania, but isn't there an area of human he behavior or commercial intercourse, if you will,

where the congress has not kept interstate regular? the congress has actually allowed the states, has it not, to prevent insurance companies from operating in one state and in another, and thereby kept the insurance companies that are in state captive and given them a preferred role and told people that live there, you can only buy from these insurance companies. how did that happen, tim? >> that's a good example for the proper role for the government. the state governments are preventing us from purchasing healthcare policies that are being offered by companies in other states. this is where congress should be acting to free up the market in healthcare policies, but unfortunately, congress is moving off in the other direction, and so the problems are going to be exacerbated instead of solved. andrew: jay, when members of congress are debating legislation, you have been there and you know how the government works, do they actually look at the constitution to see if what they want to do is authorized there, or do they just say, you know what?

this is what i think is right. government knows best. the heck with it, we will let the courts decide if it's constitutional? >> you know, judge, some of the members do, because some of them take it seriously. i could rattle off some of them that take the constitution seriously, but i will tell you this, one of the first questions i get asked by the supreme court of the united states when i'm defending a statute and i've been in that position before, they will say what is the constitutional gantt of authority for this legislation? is it the necessary and proper clause? is it the commerce clause that we have been talking about? unfortunately, congress ignored that oftentimes and while the supreme court has expanded the role of government over the last 40 years, the fact of the matter is from time to time, the court realizes, wait a minute, congress really shouldn't be engaging in this, and frankly, i think, judge, that this situation right now, as it elates to healthcare reform, is exactly that. in fact. i'm all for that the american people will speak up and they will beat this back and the congress is going to say we're

not going to do this. if they do, we're already looking at that lawsuit and it will focus like a bull's eye on the commerce clause and lack of constitutional authority for this legislation in the first place. andrew: thank you. tim, here is a question that i get all the time -- why can't i file a lawsuit? why can't i just sue the congress and get the courts to invalidate it? >> challenging like a healthcare proposal in the congress? andrew: right. >> the way the constitution was set up is that they expected each branch to take their constitutional responsibilities seriously. they put a stop to unconstitutional proposals in the congress. if it happens to get out of congress, they expected the president to veto any unconstitutional legislation, and then if it were to get the president's signature, they wanted the courts to enforce the constitution. as i said earlier, in some respects we have drifted away from it. it is up to the american people now to exert pressure on members of congress that they are ignoring the constitution. that's the only way we will

keep the charter of our liberties alive and well. otherwise, it is just words on paper. andrew: got it. tim lynch, jay

andrew: 7 months into his term in office, the obama administration and just like the bush administration before it, is acting like it never heard of the constitution. just as president bush allowed spying without warrants an incarceration without trial, president obama wants to control the salaries of private businesses, change the provisions of private contracts, nationalize

insurers an auto manufacturers an dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices shall be. this is theft of liberty, and theft of property. is freedom a reality or a myth? are the rights guaranteed in the constitution real or just a pretense? wasn't the constitution written to define and to restrain the government? that's what supreme court justices once said, to keep the government off our back, and if the questions are no longer obvious, it's because we now have a federal government whose only self-acknowledged limitation is whatever it can get away with. there you have it. from new york, defending freedom, and your constitutional rights guaranteed. good night, america.